I can't begin to imagine having to deal with fluffy questions at the start of meetings on top of an already painful experience of back to back calls. I think they'd simply be made better by having clear purpose and desired outcomes. Half the time it could of been an email, the other half people are unprepared for their input that's required.
As an agile coach it's ingrained in me to do a fluffy question to loosen people up and make them more likely to contribute. Now I can see why, in my company's culture, that can generate a mixed reaction. Now I pick the moments to do this much more selectively!
I can understand it in the context of, for example, training days with a diverse group of people who don't work with each other day to day or a team annual planning session, for the reasons you flag. But in the scenario of BAU work days and meetings on projects with 'the usual suspects', anything like this would grind on me where I just want to free up space in my diary to 'get on'.
The research shows that the earlier someone talks in a meeting, the more likely they engage in the meeting. The longer it goes without contribution, more likely we detach from the meeting.
Don't think they have to be "fluffy" (what does this mean?) nor long winded. I often use "one word - one word for how you're turning up/what you want from this meeting/feel about the meeting" etc. And agree, more impactful in less frequent meetings.
The main issue is people leading meetings don't run them effectively. They aren't demanding enough of people showing up with answers and ready to commit don't use the people in the room (could have been an email), don't prep nor demand prep. But then, we're do busy having ineffective meetings theres not the time to create effective ones.
I generally agree but when you have 30 hours a week of meetings it’s not a question that you need an agenda. You actually need to address why the answer to everything is a meeting.
There's a lot of talk of young people "cheating" with AI but not about companies - like that newspaper this week that published an article of top reads...almost all of which were hallucinated. Surely removing journalists and replacing with AI is just as much about cheating the social contract; denying paid work while also pumping out fake slop.
Also on the HireVue etc thing - happy to chat if you want. I have used it (not by my choice) in two previous companies. I did a LinkedIn post on it last week and it massively kicked off. I see why they are used but strongly believe they are detrimental to recruitment processes.
I properly cringed at the concert question. So many people will have never been to a concert or had an adult was able to take them to one. People who've made it into the corporate world from poorer backgrounds are already struggling to fit in.
I can't begin to imagine having to deal with fluffy questions at the start of meetings on top of an already painful experience of back to back calls. I think they'd simply be made better by having clear purpose and desired outcomes. Half the time it could of been an email, the other half people are unprepared for their input that's required.
Totally agree
As an agile coach it's ingrained in me to do a fluffy question to loosen people up and make them more likely to contribute. Now I can see why, in my company's culture, that can generate a mixed reaction. Now I pick the moments to do this much more selectively!
I can understand it in the context of, for example, training days with a diverse group of people who don't work with each other day to day or a team annual planning session, for the reasons you flag. But in the scenario of BAU work days and meetings on projects with 'the usual suspects', anything like this would grind on me where I just want to free up space in my diary to 'get on'.
The research shows that the earlier someone talks in a meeting, the more likely they engage in the meeting. The longer it goes without contribution, more likely we detach from the meeting.
Don't think they have to be "fluffy" (what does this mean?) nor long winded. I often use "one word - one word for how you're turning up/what you want from this meeting/feel about the meeting" etc. And agree, more impactful in less frequent meetings.
The main issue is people leading meetings don't run them effectively. They aren't demanding enough of people showing up with answers and ready to commit don't use the people in the room (could have been an email), don't prep nor demand prep. But then, we're do busy having ineffective meetings theres not the time to create effective ones.
I generally agree but when you have 30 hours a week of meetings it’s not a question that you need an agenda. You actually need to address why the answer to everything is a meeting.
There's a lot of talk of young people "cheating" with AI but not about companies - like that newspaper this week that published an article of top reads...almost all of which were hallucinated. Surely removing journalists and replacing with AI is just as much about cheating the social contract; denying paid work while also pumping out fake slop.
Ha I missed that. I can confirm that all of my Top Reads were pre-read by one (tired looking) human.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/chicago-sun-times-ai-book-list-1.7539016
Also on the HireVue etc thing - happy to chat if you want. I have used it (not by my choice) in two previous companies. I did a LinkedIn post on it last week and it massively kicked off. I see why they are used but strongly believe they are detrimental to recruitment processes.
I properly cringed at the concert question. So many people will have never been to a concert or had an adult was able to take them to one. People who've made it into the corporate world from poorer backgrounds are already struggling to fit in.
So glad I wasn't alone in cringing at these things.